The U.S. backed negotiations between Israel and Palestinians have ground to a halt. Israel’s government is unwilling to talk about both peoples sharing Jerusalem as the capital of two States. Ahmed Qurie the Head Palestinian negotiator has come to the sad realization that the negotiations have been in vain. Qurie now knows that Israel is as unlikely to negotiate a Two State Solution in good faith. Now he is looking at a very different solution, a solution that rapidly is becoming the only path forward as Israel carves off more and more chunks of the occupied West Bank foreclosing any possibility of a contiguous State for the Palestinians on the occupied West Bank.

Palestinian negotiator considers binational state

"If Israel continues to oppose making this a reality, then the Palestinian demand for the Palestinian people and its leadership (would be) one state, a binational state," he added at the meeting held in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

His comments were carried in a statement issued after the meeting.

From Israel's Haaretz: PA: We may demand binational Israeli-Palestinian state

A couple of Sundays ago, on the heels of Obama's overseas trip, I caught the trifecta of his "Big 3" interviews overseas, which were rounded up on C-Span. I had it on in the background as I did stuff around the house, half listening, but my ears perked up during the Charlie Gibson one on ABC. I thought Jeremy Paxman of the BBC had taken over his chair!

What made me stop and listen was that, like Paxman, Gibson was tough and persistent in his questioning of Obama on the ME, most notably on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, without shortchanging the Palestinians. (This is all too RARE here.) His snide demeanor was also Paxmanesque, although Paxman exudes his trademark high-perched attitude when questioning pols of ALL stripes, across the pond  - very "You may be Mr or Ms BigStuff, but I dont shrink."

What is made clear, from this interview (and other comments), is that Obama, as President, diplomat and broker in chief, does not intend to distinguish himself from the inglorious pack of US politicians in his handling of this disastrously handled conflict.

So, sorry to say, in the instance of this interview, I welcomed Gibson's arrogant demeanor.

Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama "quickly backtracked" from his remarks in a speech to AIPAC that Jerusalem "must remain undivided," a statement that had drawn widespread criticism from Palestinians, the Washington Post reports.

In a interview Thursday with CNN, Obama said:

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Jewish Voice for Peace welcomed Senator Obama's clarification, noting that his original statement "undermined the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that Obama promises to promote," adding:

Shouldn't really be a diary entry, but I can't see  any discussion elsewhere about Obama's staunch pro-Israeli diatribe. So check out the opening of Goodman's show with a clip from Obama. The rest of the clip on RFK is good too. And Amy is a public good.

http://www.democracynow.org/...

My take is that he is further alienating the Arab and muslim population at the worst time because he doesn't want to risk the political fallout. Now how much change is that? How new is that. Sounds like the same ole same ole to me. I wonder if anyone here has the nerve to speak truth to power? Obama owes his nomination to many of you--perhaps he would listen, if you dared speak.

Kudos to Ralph Nader who did have the nerve to speak.

Perhaps
OUR MOTTO at KOS ought to be:
See no evil!    Hear no evil!   speak no evil!
against our beloved leader.

    See AFP via Breitbart, Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel: Obama,

    US Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama said Wednesday that Jerusalem must remain the "undivided" capital of Israel in a speech to a powerful US-Israel lobby group here.
    "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided," Obama told the vast annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC). ...

    Hmm.

Obama gave possibly the most vaunted foreign policy speech today at the AIPAC conference. He's once again reiterating and repeating his committment to Israel' security and well being as well as his belief in the historical bound between the US and the Jewish state. Remarkably, he also promised that Jerusalem will become Israel's undivided capital, something that unheard of from Hillary, Bill Clinton, and even the Bushes. In terms of Iran, Obama promised to use a strong diplomacy and no longer applying the word "unconditional" dialogues with the Mullah's regime. Instead, he would carefully set up a preparation before engaging with it and only when Iran will not become a threat to the state of Israel (it sounds like a conditionality to me).  

Israel and Syria know something that Bush and McCain do not. Enemies, divided by a bitter disagreement, need to negotiate with one another in order to settle their differences. Even James (don’t forget my role in stealing Florida) Baker knows this.

There are official announcements from both capitals today of what has been known about for months: Israel and Syria are having serious negotiations to settle their differences. As I will explain below this is both real and very important.

It's remarkable to me how two of history's latest, greatest buffoons—George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden—after years of lurking in relative obscurity, came to prominence onto the world stage about the same time, just in time to do extraordinary damage.

Both are megalomaniacs, incompetent scions of wealthy families, fundamentalist believers in warped views of G-d and humans, leaders of sheep-like followers, morally and spiritually bankrupt, and shadowy, imperious "leaders" whose personal pissing match ("you dis'spected mah daddy" vs. "damn you li'l bush") has drawn us into the wars a select few are fighting on both sides today (y'know, while they and their children stay out of harm's way...the harm they've created?).

Right-wing pro-Israel blogger Ted Belman has recently embarrassed himself by joining the stampede of conservative Republicans so desperate to keep Senator Barack Obama out of the White House that they'll say just about anything to scare people out of voting for him.

Make no mistake, Belman and his ilk are scared.  The smear tactics which worked so well against John Kerry in 2004 just don't seem to be working on Obama.  So, what's an ideologue to do?  The answer, apparently, is to take a gaggle of absurd accusations against Obama, combine them into a hastily written hodgepodge of rumor and innuendo, and throw them out into the blogosphere in the hope that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

Here's what the smear-mongers want you to believe:

UPDATE: the news was carried by the Jerusalem Post.

The right-wing spin machine would have you believe that former President Carter only represented himself when he went to the Middle East, and met with Hamas leaders in efforts to challenge the destructive Bush Administration policy of trying to exclude Hamas from efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peace by imposing a blockade on Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

But it just ain't so.

This week Jewish Voice for Peace and Just Foreign Policy delivered 5,000 signatures on petitions in support of former President Carter's initiative.

Below the fold is the press release Just Foreign Policy sent to news media.

Many Jews around the world are celebrating Israel's 60th birthday this week. Mazl tov!

Let us recall this week a wonderful Jewish tradition, shared by other faiths and nations around the world throughout history. Those who have been blessed share their blessings with the less fortunate.

Fans of Yiddish literature will remember the wonderful story "Strike of the Schnorrers," where a Jewish wedding celebration is put in peril because the poor people are on strike - and how could the celebration proceed without a meal for the poor?

So long as Palestinians cannot exercise their right of national self-determination, any celebration of Israel's independence will always be marred.

We know what we have to do. Consistent pressure from the United States can help bring about a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, a solution that has near-universal international support.

Many U.S. policies should change to help bring about peace in the Middle East.

But in some cases, existing U.S. policy just needs to be implemented.

Such is the case with respect to U.S. policy towards the expansion of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated:

"Settlement activity should stop - expansion should stop."

Unfortunately, the Israeli government does not appear to believe that Secretary of State Rice is serious. The Israeli government is moving forward with plans to build hundreds of new homes for Israeli settlers in the West Bank, in violation of international law and in violation of pledges that the Israeli government made at the peace conference in Annapolis.

Many Americans would like to change the perception that the U.S. is not serious about opposing Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. Thousands of Americans have written to Congress urging action.

In case you did not know, it is the 60th anniversary of Israel's formation as a modern nation-state. Charles Johnson at LGF is taking the opportunity to point out how wacky and insane we all are. Instead of you know, engaging in meaningful debate on the MidEast conflict, CJ just treats his political opponents as comic relief. He tends to care little about troublesome facts such as the brutal nature of IDF conduct, the strangulation of Gaza, the colonization of the West Bank, or the demolition of Arab homes.

Continued below...

Three articles illustrate the problems with the so-called "peace process" between Israel and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority.

The first article is an April 15 report by Rory McCarthy of The Guardian on Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in the "Area C" sections of the West Bank:

Area C covers 60% of the West Bank, home to around 70,000 Palestinians. It is also the area in which most Jewish settlements, all illegal under international law, are built. Compelling statistical evidence shows that while it is extremely hard for Palestinians to obtain building permits, settlements continue to grow rapidly.

More below.

This is not truly a diary, but a simple poll placed in the open thread.  I believe we make peace with enemies, and Jimmy Carter proved the point in Camp David.  

By talking to Hamas President Carter should not be viewed as anti-Israeli, but his actions should be properly considered as helpful to Israel.  The Israelis need to have a dialogue with them, but for obvious reasons cannot make the first step, and a credible interlocutor is needed. Ergo, Jimmy Carter.

Without dialogue, the horrible status quo will remain, peace will remain elusive, and today its in Israel's interest to have a solution, perhaps moreso than the Palestinians.

Israel has no viable partner for peace, absent Hamas.  So where do we start?

As Passover approaches, some of you may hear references to "why is this [ fill in the blank ] different from all other.....? " type questions.  It's a (usually humorous) reference to the 4 Questions asked at Passover Seders.  Tradition has it the youngest child(ren) at the table have to answer them.  It's a way of transmitting the oral tradition.  The 4 Questions actually answer the Big Question: "Why is this night different from all other nights?"  

This brings me to Jimmy Carter and his recent trip to Israel.  Why is this trip different from all other trips?  For starters, the only Israeli official who would meet with him was Shimon Peres.  But the real corker was the Shin Bet, Israel's General Security Service, refused to protect him.   That's a big difference from Bush's recent visit which featured 10,000 police officers deployed across Jerusalem in addition to the usual snipers, etc.

Let me first say that on the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel, Obama has shown more boldness than most pols with presidential aspirations. The possibility that he might bring some sanity and decency to American policy on this issue is a reason I voted for him.

But as the campaign has progressed, he's gotten more timid on the issue. And now he's timid to the point of compromising his principles.

I have seen on Daily Kos many people argue that there was a 'Nakba' on May 14, 1948, whereby innocent Palestinians had to flee from the evil Zionist invaders.  In order to address this notion, it first is necessary to examine whether there ever was a 'Palestine,' where this 'Palestinian ethnicity' came from, and who the Palestinian leadership was in 1948.